Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTortsFirst AmendmentAiding and AbettingFirst Amendmentaiding and abettingspeech integral to crimeabstract advocacy

Facts

James Perry murdered Mildred Horn, her son Trevor Horn, and Trevor’s nurse after using Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors, a book published by Paladin, whose detailed instructions on murder closely matched Perry’s methods. Paladin stipulated for purposes of summary judgment that Perry followed numerous instructions from Hit Man in planning, executing, and concealing the murders. Paladin also stipulated that in marketing Hit Man it intended to attract and assist criminals and would-be criminals, and that it intended and knew the book would be used by such persons to plan and execute murder for hire. The parties further agreed that the sole issue for decision was whether the First Amendment completely barred the civil action.

Issue

Does the First Amendment provide a complete defense to a civil wrongful death action alleging that a publisher aided and abetted murder by publishing and selling a detailed murder manual intended to assist criminals? Also, did the plaintiffs state a viable civil aiding and abetting claim under Maryland law sufficient to survive summary judgment?

Rule

The First Amendment does not bar civil aiding and abetting liability for speech that constitutes assistance and encouragement of criminal conduct, at least where the defendant acts with the specific purpose of assisting the crime and the speech takes the form of detailed, non-abstract instruction rather than abstract advocacy. Brandenburg protects mere abstract advocacy of lawlessness, not speech that is integral to criminal conduct or that methodically prepares, instructs, and steels another to commit crime.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Desert Forge Publishing sells a booklet called Silent Entry that gives step-by-step directions for breaking into occupied homes, disabling alarm systems, and escaping detection. In discovery, the publisher stipulates that it marketed the booklet to burglars and intended purchasers to use it immediately to commit residential burglary.

If victims of a burglary sue the publisher for civil aiding and abetting, what is the strongest argument against the publisher’s claim of complete First Amendment immunity?

Explanation. The majority held that the First Amendment is not a complete defense where the defendant specifically intends to assist criminal conduct and provides detailed, operational instruction rather than abstract advocacy. Speech used as an integral part of unlawful conduct may be subjected to civil aiding-and-abetting liability, at least in those circumstances. The other choices overstate the rule or misstate it.